Deep Learning Approaches on Image Captioning: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image captioning is a research area of immense importance, aiming to generate natural language descriptions for visual content in the form of still images. The advent of deep learning and more recently vision-language pre-training techniques has revolutionized the field, leading to more sophisticated methods and improved performance. In this survey article, we provide a structured review of deep learning methods in image captioning by presenting a comprehensive taxonomy and discussing each method category in detail. Additionally, we examine the datasets commonly employed in image captioning research, as well as the evaluation metrics used to assess the performance of different captioning models. We address the challenges faced in this field by emphasizing issues such as object hallucination, missing context, illumination conditions, contextual understanding, and referring expressions. We rank different deep learning methods’ performance according to widely used evaluation metrics, giving insight into the current state-of-the-art. Furthermore, we identify several potential future directions for research in this area, which include tackling the information misalignment problem between image and text modalities, mitigating dataset bias, incorporating vision-language pre-training methods to enhance caption generation, and developing improved evaluation tools to accurately measure the quality of image captions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".